So they implement a policy that cars must have passengers to use main roads. So people "hire" (that word used in the articles) passengers to get around the law. Since screaming kids is not something people are willing to pay for the kids are drugged to stay quiet.
So, they can choose seeing kids drugged or they can choose longer commutes. They chose longer commutes.
Who was it that said for every problem there is a fix that is easy, simple, and wrong? I believe that applies here.
I'm not disputing that. I'm only pointing out that switching from cheap and reliable coal to expensive and unreliable wind and solar will prove problematic in keeping millions of cars moving.
Other targets set in the French environmental plan include ending coal power plants by 2022, reducing nuclear power to 50% of total output by 2025, and ending the issuance of new oil and gas exploration licences.
They just said they were going to reduce their reliance on nuclear.
I'll explain further here on not needing a traditional clutch as I propose. If you have an electric motor, and computer controlling the speed, driving the wheels and the output of the transmission, and an ICE, with the same computer controlling it's speed, then the computer can match the gear ratios exactly with each gear shift. The accelerator is not an engine throttle, it's a "drive by wire" input to the computer telling it how much power should be applied to the wheels. There's no sychros, the computer is the synchro. No squealing of tires, unless the computer allows it and the driver wants it. No slippage in a clutch because the computer is matching the rotational speed of every part of the transmission precisely.
Computers are cheap, metal is expensive. Make the computer complex and the drive train simple and you can get a lot of performance with little cash.
A better bet by far is to figure ways of improving energy storage.
Or, we can do more than one thing at a time.
You think that a battery cares where the energy used to charge it comes from? Sure, we can build up 3GW of solar, build out massive battery banks to last through the night. We can also build a 1GW nuclear power plant, a much smaller battery bank to last through the day, and let that nuclear reactor just putt-putt along at a nice even pace. Nuclear would mean less land needed, less labor, less material dug from the ground, just generally cheaper in the end really.
Strictly speaking nuclear power is non-renewable, so it fails on that front.
In long enough time scales neither is the sun and wind. There's enough nuclear fuel, easily accessible, on the surface of the Earth to last until the sun burns out. If "renewable" means "until the sun consumes the atmosphere" then nuclear is renewable.
If France thinks that it is possible to make electric cars more attractive than petroleum burning ones in 20 years then it should be possible to make nuclear power more attractive than coal in 20 years. Oh, and we can likely solve that problem of recycling the nuclear waste by then too. We solved the problem of coal ash, they call it "coal combustion products" and sell it as industrial feedstock. We could do something similar with spent nuclear fuel too.
I agree that the travel time has an upper limit, but the regularity one might travel can change. I remember in college I'd avoid visiting my parents if I didn't have gas money. With a round trip of about 300 miles that meant roughly a tank of gas in my Oldsmobile. I don't recall what gas was then but in recent years I've seen a tank of gas be as low as $30 and as high as $70.
If you have a set sum of money per month to spend on visiting someone/something, then that can mean doing it once, twice, or even three weekends per month, depending on the price of fuel and the economy of your vehicle.
I'm also from the US and people I know will regularly spend 2 hours in a car every day to get to work and back. People in general like nice cars so if gas is cheap they get a larger, higher performing, and generally gas hungrier vehicle. The thought isn't "waste gasoline" as much as "burn cash".
That's about right. France, or any nation, cannot be "carbon neutral" without nuclear power. I don't care if you got 23 years to plan that out, unless they are sitting on some leap in technology that no one is telling me about then this is bullshit.
Replacing all the cars with electric, while also reducing use of coal and nuclear? That's not happening.
Barring some leap in technology we have three choices: - Keep burning coal and oil - Switch to nuclear - Partying like it's 1799
Sure, you can keep the lights on with solar, hydro, and wind but you can't keep heavy industry going on wind, water, and sun.
With 23 years being greater than 2 I believe it's not happening. Maybe if they made an announcement of a goal close to 8 years, like JFK did on planning to go to the moon, then I might believe them.
The oil worth getting is what I was referring to. That oil will last centuries. While seeking alternatives is always a good idea there should be no concern of running out of easy to get oil in anyone's lifetime.
We'll switch to something else when/if oil gets too expensive. That will happen when oil prices go up enough, alternatives get cheap enough, or they meet somewhere in the middle.
Not what you were describing above as you well know when you wrote " People do clutchless shifting all the time once they learn the proper way to do it".
The process of shifting without using the clutch is analogous to not having a clutch at all. I've seen people drive light trucks where the clutch pedal would break on them. A light truck (and the not too shabby power to weight ration that comes with it) worn tires, an experienced driver, and it's apparently not to difficult to drive. Having to stop on an uphill slope at a stop light can mean some grinding of gears and squealing of tires but it will go. Give the truck a little "boost" with an electric motor, and a little computer to automate the process, and you don't need the clutch. The linkages in the transmission effectively become "the clutch" but there is no "clutch" as people would recognize it. Instead of a large friction clutch that can wear out there could be simple dog clutches that, assuming the motor and computer do their jobs, would not wear any more than any other part of the transmission.
What's with the utterly shameless desire to "win" all the time?
Pot. Kettle. Black. I simply do not appreciate having words put in my mouth and/or be called a fool.
It's just like when you were trying to tell people earlier that plutonium is some harmless thing that doesn't need to be treated with respect.
Is the groom going to call off the wedding unless the bride has a high school certificate?
I'm not saying a stay at home mom (or husband) should not have a high school education, they should. I'm saying that no one is going to check for a piece of paper for that lifestyle choice.
Once the kids are grown the housewife/househusband might decide to enter the workforce and supplement a single earner income for retirement. Having a piece of paper that shows a high school education might be important then. There's plenty of low cost alternatives to that though.
"Geometry? I can't recall using that in recent decades."
I find that difficult to believe. You never had to buy paint to repaint a room? How do you know how much to buy? Compute the area of the walls of the room perhaps? Same for buying grass seed or fertilizer for a lawn. Or carpet or tile for a floor. Thinking of how long of a ladder you need to get on your roof. If you had to do any kind of home maintenance you need some concept of geometry.
I'll elaborate further. Consider a drive train with ICE -> transmission -> electric motor -> differential -> wheels. The transmission is capable of park, neutral, and at least two forward gear ratios.
Process to move car from standstill: With ICE running and transmission in neutral the driver pushes accelerator and electric motor propels the vehicle. When transmission input to output ratio matches first gear shift engage first gear.
Up shift: As car accelerates disengage gearing, throttle down ICE until input to output ratio matches next highest gear, increase motor power, engage higher gear, throttle up ICE to continue accelerating with ICE and motor sharing load.
Down shift: As vehicle slows increase motor power and disengage gear, throttle up engine until input and output transmission ratios match next lower gear, engage lower gear, throttle up ICE to allow electric motor to reduce power.
Slow speed or come to stop: Increase motor power to allow transmission to disengage, reduce motor power, when/if driver engages brakes then cut motor power.
Reverse: Disengage transmission, use electric motor alone to propel vehicle. Once at a stop the process to park the vehicle is the transmission engages park (by engaging multiple ratio gearing to lock up transmission). Going forward from stop is as above.
The drive train is simplified, lighter, at the cost of more advanced transmission control computer connected to the ICE throttle. The accelerator would simply be a "volume control" where the user can indicate to the drive train computer the desired speed.
So, not much different than many other hybrids. Also, not much different than what one of my professors mention as his proposal for a hybrid vehicle.
No, a high school diploma is worthless. And I don't mean that people are looking for a college degree to get a job.
I've found there are quite a number of means to prove your value to an employer. There's a lot of high school equivalency tests out there. Places offer what is essentially an IQ test for showing reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic to potential employers. A lot of these tests are "free" in that the state will pay for it for anyone that qualifies for welfare or unemployment insurance. There's the SAT and ACT for college entrance. Colleges don't care that you have a high school diploma, if you score well enough on an entrance test then you can get in. This is especially true if you've done some high school, even if you didn't graduate, give them a transcript showing decent grades in math, sciences, and such. The high school might withhold your diploma but I'm pretty sure they have to show you your grades.
Colleges and employers know what high schools actually teach their students. A diploma from a shit school isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I'm pretty sure that the Chicago public school system is full of shit schools.
The wealthy, of course, will be excepted by means of gap-year programs but you, peasant, you must swear fealty.
I'm pretty sure the wealthy will be exempt by the nature of going to a private school, not public school.
Also, "have a plan" is pretty vague, especially if it allows for a gap year. Tell the counselor that you are going to work for your uncle in his corner store, even if there is no job. Or corner store. Or uncle. Does the mayor think that schools won't find an "out" on this to avoid raising dropout rates? I think that the high schools will start doing summer programs for those that don't have a "plan" where they sign up for it but the school doesn't actually care if the students show up for it. In fact I'm sure they prefer they are a no show, less work for them then. At that point the students have their diploma, no obligations to the school (they'd be legally adults by then), and the school gets to tick the box for "graduated" so their numbers look good.
Getting a job at even a McDonald's requires agreeing to a set schedule, they have a business to run so they need reliable employees. A taxi service like Lyft and Uber don't have set hours, people can set their own hours. Also, working at jobs like McDonald's would mean things like being on your feet for hours, which not everyone can do. As someone with foot and knee problems I have first hand experience of limited employment options because of such disabilities.
So, sure a regular job flipping burgers might pay better but not everyone can flip burgers. Finding a job that pays worse than minimum wage in the end is better than no job at all.
I remember having a conversation about drilling in ANWR and the argument against it was that any wells started there today would not produce for 5 years, so it would do nothing for today's prices. Sure enough prices did drop, and about 5 years after that conversation prices spiked. Supply and demand bit us in the ass. If we had more supply then prices would not have spiked like that.
Sure would have been nice if we started drilling 10 years ago when I had that conversation.
The amount of oil in the ground may not be infinite but there is a lot of it. Estimates I've heard on how long we can keep pumping oil out of the ground has varied between 4 decades and 4 centuries. If we can split that down the middle and say we can go as we are now for 200 years then the oil in the ground may as well be infinite as far as anyone alive today is concerned.
Use nuclear power and all this pollution goes away.
To the haters that think nuclear waste is an impossible problem to solve I counter with fourth generation reactors that don't produce waste like the old ones did. Far preferable to the waste produced with coal, solar, or wind.
Your electric motor fills in down low to make up for the lack of torque in the engine, and for the long spool-up time on the turbocharger.
Would not an electric driven supercharger fix the problem of spool up time for an exhaust driven turbocharger?
If you have an electric motor assisting the ICE after the transmission then does one need a dual clutch transmission for smooth shifting and constant torque to the wheels?
Thinking about this some I consider that a clutch is not even needed to switch gears if the engine and gearing can be synchronized. People do clutchless shifting all the time once they learn the proper way to do it, and not trash the transmission either. Get a computer control to match the electric motor, gear shifting, and engine throttle and I'd think you'd get a rocket on wheels and do it with pretty cheap hardware. An electric motor and a small (-ish) battery would give you great acceleration in stop and go traffic and then once the car is cruising the computer can switch the motor to generator mode and top off the battery. Put something like this in a heavy truck and a slug of a big rig will get a bit peppier and not annoy so many drivers stuck behind in traffic.
I like where you are going with this. I'm just thinking that there might be ways to improve on the idea.
Its green light badly needs to be regulated by a vehicle sensor.
No, they don't need a sensor.
In college I remember a stretch of road like you describe where if you hit one light you hit them all. Then I ran an experiment, I drove faster and faster until I didn't hit a red light any more. The posted limit was 35 mph but if I drove at 40 mph I would hit only one light. That's just fucked up, the city timed the lights to ENCOURAGE speeding.
Where I live now many lights are run by sensors when in the past they were timed. Being that the roads are pretty flat and straight I could see the lights well in advance of reaching them and usually adjust my speed to catch the lights as they flipped and not have to stop. Now I have to stop. Every. Fucking, Time.
In the past if I was in a hurry I knew I could adjust my speed just so to minimize traffic stops, I might not get there any faster really but I'd never have to stop and wait for a light. Now if I'm in a hurry the sensors encourage me to be a hotdog and stomp on the gas to get up to the light, and then lay on the brakes hard to stop. I've calmed some in time so I don't do that nearly as often as I used to, now I just scream at the windshield. I'm not sure the other drivers on the road have lost their hotdogging ways like I have.
I've driven past it every day for 2 years, and I've only seen someone exiting that shopping center three times, yet everyone has to wait 20 seconds every cycle as if there were cars exiting it all the time.
I've seen several cases of roads having a problem with speeding until a stop sign or stop light is installed. The stop forces people to moderate their speed. People learn to moderate their speed to the lights like I did, and as my college classmates did, so that stopping is minimized. Sure, it sucks to have to wait for that first light but if they are timed right, and you drive a reasonable speed, then you should hit just one red light on your way in or out of town.
I've seen it both ways and I think that properly timed lights are much better at managing traffic than sensors at the intersections.
The only reason people demand that they be able to charge an EV at home is because it takes so long. It's terribly inconvenient to wait an hour to charge up a car at a public charging station. It's generally inconsequential to have it charge up while at home, where you can take off your shoes and have a beer while supper is in the oven.
If an EV could be charged to 100% in 5, or even 15, minutes regularly and not be concerned about battery damage then we would not even bother with home charging systems. As it is we'll read about how an EV can be charged to 80% of max capacity in 30 minutes, and in the fine print is a disclaimer that this should not be done regularly since it can shorten the life of the battery.
The issue of 80% charge might also not be such a big deal if the range was closer to that of a petroleum fueled car. Getting 400 or maybe even 500 miles on a tank with a piece of shit car is not unusual. Doing that in an EV means getting top of the line with the extra cost option of a high density battery. It also means an even longer charge time, where with a petroleum car it means a few more seconds at the pump.
So let's assume that there is a law that bans sex with childlike robots, how it that enforced?
Imagine a "build a bot" shop where people can specify the size, shape, color, whatever of their sex bot. So, a dude comes in and asks for a "woman bot" that is 5 feet tall, A-cup, narrow hips, and no hair "down there". Is the shop supposed to report the guy? Is the shop supposed to refuse the order? Or, is that not "childlike" because the shops says that is not childlike "enough"?
Just so I don't get complaints about being male centered the reverse works too, a woman orders a "man bot" that is short, slight build, thick hair on top, thin hair down low. What makes a robot too much like a child that it would trigger this ban?
Wasn't there something on Slashdot about people getting in trouble for "child porn" for having suggestive pictures of their wife or girlfriend that was an adult but fit that "woman bot" description I gave above? I know that there was stuff about people getting in trouble for DRAWINGS of childlike figures in suggestive poses. The people that create this stuff found some interesting ways around this, like saying it's not a child but an ancient alien creature cursed to live forever in a child's body, or something.
I've seen some children that look enough like an adult that I'd be fooled if I didn't know different. I've also seen plenty of adult women that look very childlike, especially if they weren't seen dragging their own children around. Do we issue robots with "birth certificates" like in those teddy bear shops? We'll just print up a "passport" or something where the robot is given a name, country of origin, and locally acceptable age for fucking.
See officer, it's right here. This piece of paper I printed out says this is an adult robot. You can't arrest me!
Slashdot Mirror
So they implement a policy that cars must have passengers to use main roads. So people "hire" (that word used in the articles) passengers to get around the law. Since screaming kids is not something people are willing to pay for the kids are drugged to stay quiet.
So, they can choose seeing kids drugged or they can choose longer commutes. They chose longer commutes.
Who was it that said for every problem there is a fix that is easy, simple, and wrong? I believe that applies here.
I was more impressed with the inclusion of a headphone jack.
I'm not disputing that. I'm only pointing out that switching from cheap and reliable coal to expensive and unreliable wind and solar will prove problematic in keeping millions of cars moving.
From the article:
Other targets set in the French environmental plan include ending coal power plants by 2022, reducing nuclear power to 50% of total output by 2025, and ending the issuance of new oil and gas exploration licences.
They just said they were going to reduce their reliance on nuclear.
Was that so hard?
I'll explain further here on not needing a traditional clutch as I propose. If you have an electric motor, and computer controlling the speed, driving the wheels and the output of the transmission, and an ICE, with the same computer controlling it's speed, then the computer can match the gear ratios exactly with each gear shift. The accelerator is not an engine throttle, it's a "drive by wire" input to the computer telling it how much power should be applied to the wheels. There's no sychros, the computer is the synchro. No squealing of tires, unless the computer allows it and the driver wants it. No slippage in a clutch because the computer is matching the rotational speed of every part of the transmission precisely.
Computers are cheap, metal is expensive. Make the computer complex and the drive train simple and you can get a lot of performance with little cash.
Does that make sense now?
A better bet by far is to figure ways of improving energy storage.
Or, we can do more than one thing at a time.
You think that a battery cares where the energy used to charge it comes from? Sure, we can build up 3GW of solar, build out massive battery banks to last through the night. We can also build a 1GW nuclear power plant, a much smaller battery bank to last through the day, and let that nuclear reactor just putt-putt along at a nice even pace. Nuclear would mean less land needed, less labor, less material dug from the ground, just generally cheaper in the end really.
Strictly speaking nuclear power is non-renewable, so it fails on that front.
In long enough time scales neither is the sun and wind. There's enough nuclear fuel, easily accessible, on the surface of the Earth to last until the sun burns out. If "renewable" means "until the sun consumes the atmosphere" then nuclear is renewable.
If France thinks that it is possible to make electric cars more attractive than petroleum burning ones in 20 years then it should be possible to make nuclear power more attractive than coal in 20 years. Oh, and we can likely solve that problem of recycling the nuclear waste by then too. We solved the problem of coal ash, they call it "coal combustion products" and sell it as industrial feedstock. We could do something similar with spent nuclear fuel too.
I'll enjoy watching this too.
Can someone tell me something? Will an electric car burn like a gasoline car? I'm sure I'll find out eventually but it's something I'd like to know.
Google tells me lithium burns with a red flame, copper with a blue or green flame. I'll keep that in mind as I watch the news.
I agree that the travel time has an upper limit, but the regularity one might travel can change. I remember in college I'd avoid visiting my parents if I didn't have gas money. With a round trip of about 300 miles that meant roughly a tank of gas in my Oldsmobile. I don't recall what gas was then but in recent years I've seen a tank of gas be as low as $30 and as high as $70.
If you have a set sum of money per month to spend on visiting someone/something, then that can mean doing it once, twice, or even three weekends per month, depending on the price of fuel and the economy of your vehicle.
I'm also from the US and people I know will regularly spend 2 hours in a car every day to get to work and back. People in general like nice cars so if gas is cheap they get a larger, higher performing, and generally gas hungrier vehicle. The thought isn't "waste gasoline" as much as "burn cash".
That's about right. France, or any nation, cannot be "carbon neutral" without nuclear power. I don't care if you got 23 years to plan that out, unless they are sitting on some leap in technology that no one is telling me about then this is bullshit.
Replacing all the cars with electric, while also reducing use of coal and nuclear? That's not happening.
Barring some leap in technology we have three choices:
- Keep burning coal and oil
- Switch to nuclear
- Partying like it's 1799
Sure, you can keep the lights on with solar, hydro, and wind but you can't keep heavy industry going on wind, water, and sun.
With 23 years being greater than 2 I believe it's not happening. Maybe if they made an announcement of a goal close to 8 years, like JFK did on planning to go to the moon, then I might believe them.
The pedal is a different thing to the plate!
I know that. Please explain the flaw in my logic rather than just say I don't know what I'm talking about, professor.
The oil worth getting is what I was referring to. That oil will last centuries. While seeking alternatives is always a good idea there should be no concern of running out of easy to get oil in anyone's lifetime.
We'll switch to something else when/if oil gets too expensive. That will happen when oil prices go up enough, alternatives get cheap enough, or they meet somewhere in the middle.
Not what you were describing above as you well know when you wrote " People do clutchless shifting all the time once they learn the proper way to do it".
The process of shifting without using the clutch is analogous to not having a clutch at all. I've seen people drive light trucks where the clutch pedal would break on them. A light truck (and the not too shabby power to weight ration that comes with it) worn tires, an experienced driver, and it's apparently not to difficult to drive. Having to stop on an uphill slope at a stop light can mean some grinding of gears and squealing of tires but it will go. Give the truck a little "boost" with an electric motor, and a little computer to automate the process, and you don't need the clutch. The linkages in the transmission effectively become "the clutch" but there is no "clutch" as people would recognize it. Instead of a large friction clutch that can wear out there could be simple dog clutches that, assuming the motor and computer do their jobs, would not wear any more than any other part of the transmission.
What's with the utterly shameless desire to "win" all the time?
Pot. Kettle. Black. I simply do not appreciate having words put in my mouth and/or be called a fool.
It's just like when you were trying to tell people earlier that plutonium is some harmless thing that doesn't need to be treated with respect.
I never said that.
Is the groom going to call off the wedding unless the bride has a high school certificate?
I'm not saying a stay at home mom (or husband) should not have a high school education, they should. I'm saying that no one is going to check for a piece of paper for that lifestyle choice.
Once the kids are grown the housewife/househusband might decide to enter the workforce and supplement a single earner income for retirement. Having a piece of paper that shows a high school education might be important then. There's plenty of low cost alternatives to that though.
"Geometry? I can't recall using that in recent decades."
I find that difficult to believe. You never had to buy paint to repaint a room? How do you know how much to buy? Compute the area of the walls of the room perhaps? Same for buying grass seed or fertilizer for a lawn. Or carpet or tile for a floor. Thinking of how long of a ladder you need to get on your roof. If you had to do any kind of home maintenance you need some concept of geometry.
I'm honestly not sure if you are being serious or snarky.
Perhaps you could explain where I am mistaken?
I'll elaborate further. Consider a drive train with ICE -> transmission -> electric motor -> differential -> wheels. The transmission is capable of park, neutral, and at least two forward gear ratios.
Process to move car from standstill:
With ICE running and transmission in neutral the driver pushes accelerator and electric motor propels the vehicle. When transmission input to output ratio matches first gear shift engage first gear.
Up shift:
As car accelerates disengage gearing, throttle down ICE until input to output ratio matches next highest gear, increase motor power, engage higher gear, throttle up ICE to continue accelerating with ICE and motor sharing load.
Down shift:
As vehicle slows increase motor power and disengage gear, throttle up engine until input and output transmission ratios match next lower gear, engage lower gear, throttle up ICE to allow electric motor to reduce power.
Slow speed or come to stop:
Increase motor power to allow transmission to disengage, reduce motor power, when/if driver engages brakes then cut motor power.
Reverse:
Disengage transmission, use electric motor alone to propel vehicle. Once at a stop the process to park the vehicle is the transmission engages park (by engaging multiple ratio gearing to lock up transmission). Going forward from stop is as above.
The drive train is simplified, lighter, at the cost of more advanced transmission control computer connected to the ICE throttle. The accelerator would simply be a "volume control" where the user can indicate to the drive train computer the desired speed.
So, not much different than many other hybrids. Also, not much different than what one of my professors mention as his proposal for a hybrid vehicle.
How does this not work?
No, a high school diploma is worthless. And I don't mean that people are looking for a college degree to get a job.
I've found there are quite a number of means to prove your value to an employer. There's a lot of high school equivalency tests out there. Places offer what is essentially an IQ test for showing reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic to potential employers. A lot of these tests are "free" in that the state will pay for it for anyone that qualifies for welfare or unemployment insurance. There's the SAT and ACT for college entrance. Colleges don't care that you have a high school diploma, if you score well enough on an entrance test then you can get in. This is especially true if you've done some high school, even if you didn't graduate, give them a transcript showing decent grades in math, sciences, and such. The high school might withhold your diploma but I'm pretty sure they have to show you your grades.
Colleges and employers know what high schools actually teach their students. A diploma from a shit school isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I'm pretty sure that the Chicago public school system is full of shit schools.
The wealthy, of course, will be excepted by means of gap-year programs but you, peasant, you must swear fealty.
I'm pretty sure the wealthy will be exempt by the nature of going to a private school, not public school.
Also, "have a plan" is pretty vague, especially if it allows for a gap year. Tell the counselor that you are going to work for your uncle in his corner store, even if there is no job. Or corner store. Or uncle. Does the mayor think that schools won't find an "out" on this to avoid raising dropout rates? I think that the high schools will start doing summer programs for those that don't have a "plan" where they sign up for it but the school doesn't actually care if the students show up for it. In fact I'm sure they prefer they are a no show, less work for them then. At that point the students have their diploma, no obligations to the school (they'd be legally adults by then), and the school gets to tick the box for "graduated" so their numbers look good.
I'll be the devil's advocate here.
Getting a job at even a McDonald's requires agreeing to a set schedule, they have a business to run so they need reliable employees. A taxi service like Lyft and Uber don't have set hours, people can set their own hours. Also, working at jobs like McDonald's would mean things like being on your feet for hours, which not everyone can do. As someone with foot and knee problems I have first hand experience of limited employment options because of such disabilities.
So, sure a regular job flipping burgers might pay better but not everyone can flip burgers. Finding a job that pays worse than minimum wage in the end is better than no job at all.
I remember having a conversation about drilling in ANWR and the argument against it was that any wells started there today would not produce for 5 years, so it would do nothing for today's prices. Sure enough prices did drop, and about 5 years after that conversation prices spiked. Supply and demand bit us in the ass. If we had more supply then prices would not have spiked like that.
Sure would have been nice if we started drilling 10 years ago when I had that conversation.
The amount of oil in the ground may not be infinite but there is a lot of it. Estimates I've heard on how long we can keep pumping oil out of the ground has varied between 4 decades and 4 centuries. If we can split that down the middle and say we can go as we are now for 200 years then the oil in the ground may as well be infinite as far as anyone alive today is concerned.
Use nuclear power and all this pollution goes away.
To the haters that think nuclear waste is an impossible problem to solve I counter with fourth generation reactors that don't produce waste like the old ones did. Far preferable to the waste produced with coal, solar, or wind.
Your electric motor fills in down low to make up for the lack of torque in the engine, and for the long spool-up time on the turbocharger.
Would not an electric driven supercharger fix the problem of spool up time for an exhaust driven turbocharger?
If you have an electric motor assisting the ICE after the transmission then does one need a dual clutch transmission for smooth shifting and constant torque to the wheels?
Thinking about this some I consider that a clutch is not even needed to switch gears if the engine and gearing can be synchronized. People do clutchless shifting all the time once they learn the proper way to do it, and not trash the transmission either. Get a computer control to match the electric motor, gear shifting, and engine throttle and I'd think you'd get a rocket on wheels and do it with pretty cheap hardware. An electric motor and a small (-ish) battery would give you great acceleration in stop and go traffic and then once the car is cruising the computer can switch the motor to generator mode and top off the battery. Put something like this in a heavy truck and a slug of a big rig will get a bit peppier and not annoy so many drivers stuck behind in traffic.
I like where you are going with this. I'm just thinking that there might be ways to improve on the idea.
Its green light badly needs to be regulated by a vehicle sensor.
No, they don't need a sensor.
In college I remember a stretch of road like you describe where if you hit one light you hit them all. Then I ran an experiment, I drove faster and faster until I didn't hit a red light any more. The posted limit was 35 mph but if I drove at 40 mph I would hit only one light. That's just fucked up, the city timed the lights to ENCOURAGE speeding.
Where I live now many lights are run by sensors when in the past they were timed. Being that the roads are pretty flat and straight I could see the lights well in advance of reaching them and usually adjust my speed to catch the lights as they flipped and not have to stop. Now I have to stop. Every. Fucking, Time.
In the past if I was in a hurry I knew I could adjust my speed just so to minimize traffic stops, I might not get there any faster really but I'd never have to stop and wait for a light. Now if I'm in a hurry the sensors encourage me to be a hotdog and stomp on the gas to get up to the light, and then lay on the brakes hard to stop. I've calmed some in time so I don't do that nearly as often as I used to, now I just scream at the windshield. I'm not sure the other drivers on the road have lost their hotdogging ways like I have.
I've driven past it every day for 2 years, and I've only seen someone exiting that shopping center three times, yet everyone has to wait 20 seconds every cycle as if there were cars exiting it all the time.
I've seen several cases of roads having a problem with speeding until a stop sign or stop light is installed. The stop forces people to moderate their speed. People learn to moderate their speed to the lights like I did, and as my college classmates did, so that stopping is minimized. Sure, it sucks to have to wait for that first light but if they are timed right, and you drive a reasonable speed, then you should hit just one red light on your way in or out of town.
I've seen it both ways and I think that properly timed lights are much better at managing traffic than sensors at the intersections.
That's in my humble opinion of course.
The only reason people demand that they be able to charge an EV at home is because it takes so long. It's terribly inconvenient to wait an hour to charge up a car at a public charging station. It's generally inconsequential to have it charge up while at home, where you can take off your shoes and have a beer while supper is in the oven.
If an EV could be charged to 100% in 5, or even 15, minutes regularly and not be concerned about battery damage then we would not even bother with home charging systems. As it is we'll read about how an EV can be charged to 80% of max capacity in 30 minutes, and in the fine print is a disclaimer that this should not be done regularly since it can shorten the life of the battery.
The issue of 80% charge might also not be such a big deal if the range was closer to that of a petroleum fueled car. Getting 400 or maybe even 500 miles on a tank with a piece of shit car is not unusual. Doing that in an EV means getting top of the line with the extra cost option of a high density battery. It also means an even longer charge time, where with a petroleum car it means a few more seconds at the pump.
So let's assume that there is a law that bans sex with childlike robots, how it that enforced?
Imagine a "build a bot" shop where people can specify the size, shape, color, whatever of their sex bot. So, a dude comes in and asks for a "woman bot" that is 5 feet tall, A-cup, narrow hips, and no hair "down there". Is the shop supposed to report the guy? Is the shop supposed to refuse the order? Or, is that not "childlike" because the shops says that is not childlike "enough"?
Just so I don't get complaints about being male centered the reverse works too, a woman orders a "man bot" that is short, slight build, thick hair on top, thin hair down low. What makes a robot too much like a child that it would trigger this ban?
Wasn't there something on Slashdot about people getting in trouble for "child porn" for having suggestive pictures of their wife or girlfriend that was an adult but fit that "woman bot" description I gave above? I know that there was stuff about people getting in trouble for DRAWINGS of childlike figures in suggestive poses. The people that create this stuff found some interesting ways around this, like saying it's not a child but an ancient alien creature cursed to live forever in a child's body, or something.
I've seen some children that look enough like an adult that I'd be fooled if I didn't know different. I've also seen plenty of adult women that look very childlike, especially if they weren't seen dragging their own children around. Do we issue robots with "birth certificates" like in those teddy bear shops? We'll just print up a "passport" or something where the robot is given a name, country of origin, and locally acceptable age for fucking.
See officer, it's right here. This piece of paper I printed out says this is an adult robot. You can't arrest me!